The Human Rights Commission said they are “deeply disturbed by the recent passing of the Human Rights Amendment Bill 2016″, adding that “regardless of our position on the issue of marriage equality, we should all be concerned about the example this sets.”

The Human Rights Amendment 2016 — which seeks to maintain marriage as being defined as between a man and a woman — passed in the House of Assembly on Friday and will now head to the Senate. The Bill was originally brought to the House by Opposition MP Wayne Furbert back in February, and then voted on last week after an Amendment by Attorney-General Trevor Moniz.

The statement from the HRC said, “The Human Rights Commission is deeply disturbed by the recent passing of the Human Rights Amendment Bill 2016 which seeks to separate a certain piece of legislation [the Matrimonial Causes Act 1974] from the anti-discrimination protection of The Human Rights Act 1981.

“Human rights are inherent, inalienable and universal entitlements of individual human beings, neither of state nor of “cultural norms” or even the will of the majority. This is why our Human Rights Act was intended to have primacy over all legislation [unless specified], with the exception of the Bermuda Constitution.

“It was enacted to protect all people, in particular, affording protection for historically marginalised or vulnerable individuals against discrimination as set out in the Act.

“The effect of the Human Rights Amendment Bill 2016 is to legally permit discrimination against individuals of a protected class, thereby enshrining discrimination in the very Act that was put in place to protect against it.

“As a community, regardless of our position on the issue of marriage equality, we should all be concerned about the example this sets. If we can so brazenly undermine our commitment to anti-discrimination in this area, why not in other areas?

“The Bermuda Constitution only prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, creed, national origin, or political opinions. The background of Bermuda’s Human Rights Act is that it was developed in 1981 to provide Bermuda with a more modern and evolved anti-discrimination framework.

“Once Members of Parliament decide it is appropriate to carve out legislation from protection under the Human Rights Act, it is opening the door for future discriminatory legislation against individuals protected by the Human Rights Act, but not the Constitution. This is a dangerous precedent.

“For example, discrimination on the basis of gender is not prohibited by the Constitution, but is prohibited by the Human Rights Act. Are we, as a community, willing to accept that the House of Assembly, if it chooses, can pass legislation that is discriminatory against women by carving legislation out from the Human Rights Act, for example?

“What would happen if the Assembly decided to pass a bill tomorrow that took away a woman’s right to vote, her ability to pledge collateral to a bank, or her ability to be employed on an equal basis to a man? The Human Rights Commission is steadfastly against any attempt by the House of Assembly to cut any anti-discrimination protection at the knees.

“Human rights and fundamental freedoms are the birth right of all human beings; their protection and promotion is the first responsibility of governments. This is also the mandate of the Human Rights Commission and our goal is to eliminate discrimination in all its forms. We believe that all people should be equal before the law and should be entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.

“We encourage those within the community who support our stance to email each of the Senators before they begin debating the Bill on Thursday, July 14th July. In the event that this Bill is defeated, it will be sent back to the House of Assembly where it may be redrafted or withdrawn. We encourage the public to then reach out to their Member of Parliament and express your views to them directly.

“The email addresses of the Senators together with a template letter format that can be used in any correspondence is available on our Facebook page, we invite you to visit and engage on this issue: Facebook.com/HRCBermuda

“Feel free to contact the Human Rights Commission with any questions or concerns at 295-5859.”

The Commission was established in 1981…so sadly was not yet in existence, but I would argue the Civil Rights Movement is still continuing to this day because we have yet to eliminate racism as daily examples can attest. The Human Rights Act, together with CURE legislation, was enacted to help enshrine anti-discrimination in direct response to the racial segregation and inequality that plagued (and continues to plague) our community….one issue of equality does not negate another as Martin Luther King Jr so rightly reminded us. In fact, that is the whole point of their statement. The government brought this issue to the fore, so it is being addressed.

It was formed as a result of the civil right movement and is there to ensure the protection of all individual and minorities in Bermuda. You don’t like LGBT people, we get that, and nobody is forcing you to join or be a part of the LGBT, nobody is forcing you to marry someone of your sex. But your prejudice and intolerance (whether from your narrow mindedness or religious indoctrination), about how others live their lives (that in no way impacts how you live your life) doesn’t not give you or any other the right to deny them access to the same services and laws that you are entittled to. This is why the HRA & HRC exist.

In no way does granting Same Sex couple equality under the law impact on how you choose to live you life, it hasn’t destroyed a single society yet (in fact most of the countries ranked highest for quality of and happiest life have some form of marriage equality) and has been proven to have no more negative impact on children than ‘traditional’ marriage.

The Referendum on Same Sex Marriage and Unions on June 23rd was invalid! Those against SSM and Unions continue to use the percentages of for and against SSM/Civil Unions from this referendum as evidence of a mandate for MPs to do what they did in passing the Human Rights Amendment Bill 2016 on July 8th. They had no such mandate as less than 51% of the electorate voted in that referendum.

In a democracy, the majority rules so you lot need to accept the Decision. You laud democracy right? Now stand by it.

A republic is what would enable the individual(homosexual) or maybe not, and negate the majority but you lot are not ready for a republic. But still being an ens legis as most are, perhaps statutory law will find a way to legally marry same sexes as statutory law is colourable(not real) anyway.

The basic principle of democracy is majority rule coupled with the protection of minority rights. While a democracy must guarantee the expression of the popular will through majority rule, it equally must guarantee that the majority will not abuse use its power to violate the basic and inalienable rights of the minority.

You fail to understand that human rights are not determined by the will of the majority. They are there to protect minorities. If the will of the people always prevailed the civil rights movement would have never been succesful, for example.

Exactly – the fact that the majority of those that voted said no does not change the fact that two-thirds of registered voters either said yes or didn’t think it was sufficiently important to take a position.

Couldn’t agree more with the HRC’s concerns – grave concerns – but have no faith whatsoever in our politicians to recognise the seriousness of the road they’re going down.

Human Rights are not about personal beliefs, votes or religion. They should transcend that in such a way as to make a better, more evolved society. It is fundamentally all about the simple concept that we’re all created equal, and should be treated accordingly.

all those who voted in favour of this shocking amendment to the legislation (and that person who abstained!!) ought to be ashamed of themselves – to allow their own personal prejudices override their sense of what is right!! All of you “politicians” read this carefully

I understand human rights but I also understand right from wrong yes and folks will say that the bible is an old book and we worship some magic guy in the sky but all this was talked about in the bible god told man than that man with man was wrong way back than and it is still wrong now. we in Bermuda will not allow some filthy European lifestyle to take over are island what the members of the house did on Friday night was the right thing to do for Bermuda. and all who don’t like it can find some where else to live their filthy lifestyle but it won’t be in Bermuda. this government has wasted enough money on this you all can get on a plane and leave

So you’re willing to force your religon on others (which is against human rights and wrong )to deny others rihts that you have access to. You want to call it a filthy European lifestyle (which its not) yet still claim your religion which came from Europe (most christian religions all stem from the Catholics which is european) seems a tad hypocritical to me.

You do know that being gay isn’t illegal and it is our right to live in Bermuda as Bermudians.

I got to know why do you feel that you are intitled to tell me to leave the country of my birth just because you don’t like what I am? why don’t you leave and go somewhere else?

If you did not like the culture of Bermuda why did you try to adopt here as your country for your children?

Its like marring a sea cadet then telling him you hate the sea and want nothing to do with it.

You should have did your research before you paid your 25k. Bermuda is not some country club and you can not change a culture to reflect your culture of origin. Your kids and your kids will have the opportunity to mold Bermudian culture if they stay here not yourself.

And you do know that “this sick behaviour” is already “out to the public”, right? Stopping folks from getting married isn’t going to stop them from being gay, being in relationships, having sex… Your misguided hatred is blinding you to reality. As evidenced by your puerile lashing out in the first bit.

Why does me trying to defend and help a disenfranchised minority anger you so much?

There are a large number of gay and lesbian people in Bermuda. Some are politicians, at lest one was Premier, some you buy your food from, some pay your wages, some teach your children, some are you children, some are your relative, some are you.

Funny how you and your people wont “go back home” lol only on this stupid rock, full of stupid people. Unfortunately, we cant fix stupid so you lot will always win. Interpret that however you want. Im a product of my environment.

people have individual rights such as the freedom of expression, movement, religion, assembly, etc… none of those things require anyones consent or agreement. In the states those rights are endowed by the creator and here they are protected by the constitution. Since “marriage” requires the consent of more then 1 party (recall the “I do”) it is not an inherent right. It requires 2 or more people to come to an agreement. If it is the holy RITE of matrimony, it requires the consent of the imam or priest, and if it is a govt licensed contract it requires the agreement of not only the officials, but also the consent of EVERYONE (note the intent to marry ads in the paper (both maritime law and marriage act)). Therefore there is a deliberate attempt by the gay agenda drivers to misconstrue this as a “human right” issue… when it is not a right at all, because rights do not require anyones consent!

Is that what you think this is? Do you think we’re saying that only sane sex couples can get married?

Wow. Is that what the problem is here?

See, ‘cuz that’s not it at all! We’re fighting to ADD to it. We’re trying to allow ALL consenting adult couples that aren’t already family members to get married, not deny one group for no reason. There’s nothing wrong with a man and a woman getting married. No one is trying to change that.

What’s wrong with a man and a man or a woman and a woman trying to get married? Why are you trying to stop that?

There is no reason to stop any adult capable of giving legal consent from entering into the legal contract of marriage.

Yes, that’s all marriage is. A legal contract, not a religious one.

How do I know this? Because I happen to be married. I was married in a church, in Bermuda, by a minister, who was aware that my beliefs don’t fit with traditional religions. So clearly a marriage is not a religious contract, though it can be sistered with a religious contract.

All you are doing is propagating the silly argument about marriage not being a “human right” without any critical thought behind it. Who decides that it’s not a human right? you? Maybe it should be a human right or at least a civil right!

And please don’t start going on about marriage being for the purpose of procreation and rest of those ridiculous religious based arguments. If that’s the case, anyone over the age of 50 should be prevented from getting married.

Thats slightly flawed. Marriage isnt a right you are correct. But there are certain rights and entitlements that come with being “married.” Now those rights are being restricted to one class of people. That is the problem. Civil unions also nullify your argument.

Reduction ad absurdism. In English you have taken your argument to an extreme and illogical extreme but slavery is a good example of an instance where the will of the majority should not determine human rights and why there should be human rights law to protect minorities. Thank you for using that example.

A human right, does not give anyone the right to invade the privacy, morality, public probity, decency, and morays of any society,.L.B.G.T.q behavior offends all of these, the same sex marriage is a stink in the nostrils man and G-D the creator of the heavens and the earth ,and all that is between …..The Earth will throw away and reject this behavior until man comes to his senses, and his sensibilities. Without fail,in the fullness of time.Peace,.

Well you folks have already hounded out a thousand or so gay Bermudians with your vitriol. (There is a modern day gay Bermudian diaspora in London and Toronto.) So whats a few more of us chased out of town too eh?

Thank you HRC Thank you for letting those who should know but obviously don’t that they are part of the problem and not a part of the solution . All of those yes voters and the abstained vote need to be ashamed and should this be defeated in the senate and we are hoping it will , Furbert needs to withdraw it and come back with a much better amendment that isn’t discriminatory in any sense

Sybil got it right and props to him…Tony Brannon and Mike Hind are more of a hindrance than a help for the cause…straight from the horses mouth…Both of you guys are the ones who should be ashamed…thinking you’re gonna be some heroic history makers…let HOMOSEXUALS fight and DEFEND their cause…It shows conviction, dedication and commitment for themselves and brings more respect than a few so called straight males spouting off jibberish at the drop of a dime…bloody entertainment and baphomet worshippers…

@ROdney Smith… How about we add to that and say marrage is between a man and a woman of the same race… Why not discriminate some more.!!! why not take the vote from women? … What exactly do you have against the gay comunity?

You have misunderstood the principal and reason for human rights laws. They are there to primarily protect the vulnerable minorities. You’re are right however about what this law does on its face but have missed the point of its actual affect. It restricts the rights and entitlements that come with being married to one class of people and allows discrimination against another. A civil union pathway would solve your problem. Would you agree with civil unions?

I really don’t think some our leaders understand the concept of Human Rights. The passing of the adments are completely antithetical to the very idea of human rights. Unfortunately it looks as though we will have to wait for the next generation of leaders before Bermuda can truly have equal rights for all!

I’m afraid it’s more fundamental and far reaching than that. Judging by the comments from furbert, Burt and others on this board, there is a basic lack of knowledge about human rights in bermuda in general.

Why should the HRC be disturbed that the HOA passed this Act? The Human Rights Amendment Act 2013, by adding sexual orientation as a ground of discrimination, was NEVER meant to legalise gay marriage anyway. That was clearly conveyed by the Members of Parliament in 2013 and it was consistently stated so by advocates of the bill at that time. The following statement was put out by Two Words & A Comma in June 2013 as part of their “9 Things You Should Know” (about the HRA Amendment 2013):

“It Will Not Legalise Same Sex Marriage: The Marriage Act 1944 governs matrimonial affairs. This Act (as well as additional Acts) would require significant modifications in order to legalise same sex marriages. An amendment to the Human Rights Act would simply ensure that individuals have a course of legal redress should they be fired, refused a public service, or denied accommodations based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation.”

So what is the problem? The Act that was passed Friday simply reinstates by law what was already agreed in 2013 (that marriage would remain between a man and a woman). By protesting now, the LGBT community is only making itself appear to be deceitful and disingenuous as to the true motivation behind the HRA Amendment Act 2013, and that will surely lead to greater friction and trouble ahead.

First and for most is marriage a right? Not a human right but just a right. If you answer no then why is it not a right according to you? If you answered yes then guess what denying me the right to marry because I’m gay is discrimination based on sexual orientation which makes it a human rights issue. Even if you said know this applies because there are rights and privileges that come with marriage are being block ed because of sexual orientation which again makes it a human rights violation.

We’re not ‘only after’ the word marriage, we are after the rights and privileges that marriage afford. If the government could 100% guarantee that civil unions would have all the right and privileges then we’d be fine with it. But as other countries have shown in most cases when civil unions are introduced there are rights missing of the wording makes them less legal the what they should be, this of course lead back to the courts and then to the eventual realization by the government that it is simpler, easy, more cost effective, and right to just allow marriage to be for all. Also because marriage is what is used in all legal documentation and in the acts ect why wouldn’t we focus on it? If was any thing else we would focus on that because it makes no sense focusing on any other word.

We don’t hate the church there are many who are in the church still what we hate is that you are using religion to make us less then you for no reason. And since when has marriage been just a religious word? Marriage is combination of latin and French words that mean for ‘people to come together in union’ (I’m paraphrasing but if you like I could google it for you) and how would marriage equality take the word marriage from a church? It’s not like the churches would be stopped from using the word and they wouldn’t be stopped from refusing to marry same sex couples as their right to decline on religious reasons is protected by the HR and the Constitution of Bermuda.

With all due respect, this is a load of rubbish from the HRC. They must not understand legal rulings or their lawyers are purposely misleading the people.

Last Month – in June – The European Court of Human Rights ruled that if a state does not recognise same-sex ‘marriage’, this does not constitute “discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation,” when it declared a ‘marriage’ between a same-sex couple to be invalid.

The Court unanimously found that Article 12 (right to marry), taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) were not violated. This means that the French State, preventing two men from marrying (at a moment where the law did not provide this possibility), did not violate the European Convention for Human Rights.

If human rights are inherent, inalienable and universal entitlements, then under no circumstances can someone be denied these rights, correct? So if you apply this to marriage, then no one, under any form of union between consenting adults, should be denied the right to marry. But yet there are limitations on marriage found permissible by the ECHR, which if marriage was an inalienable or inherent right, would mean these limitations are discriminatory for whatever the reason. But yet again, in many, many cases the ECHR have ruled against same-sex marriage complainants seeking marriage. Hmmmm!

Last, the example talking about a hypothetical taking away of a woman’s right is a very poor choice of an example. Gender, like race, is an inalienable right, marriage is not. Very poor choice.

Gender is not a right. Gender is a protected class. As is sexual orientation (you may disagree with this but, regardless, it is). Therefore, discrimination against gender or sexual orientation is not permitted under the HRA. Marriage, per se, may not be a right but marriage endows rights under a state sanctioned legal contract. The ECHR said that governments must provide legal frameworks that allow such rights to be endowed to same sex couples. If that’s not marriage, that’s fine but there must be something that gives the same legal rights.

There is no room on the pole for the rainbow flag , unless of course it’s a symbol to keep Bermuda free from the flood of gay marriages . The HRC have no say in how Bermuda views the sanctity of marriage .

There is no room for the hopeless sinner who will hurt all mankind to save its own , believe me ! Have pity on those whose chances grow thinner , for there’s no hiding place from the Kingdoms throne … Curtis Mayfield .

I say if we legalize gay marriage, then we should also have to legalize incest and incestual marriage, pedophilia, bestiality, and the whole lot of em, right? What other things are “YOU BORN LIKE” that we can demand we want to force on everyone else? hmmmm? How about its our right to be naked, so lets make public nudity legal! And also its our right to have intercourse so legalize public intercourse and nude restaurants and strip clubs. Its our right we were born that way. And some people are born serial killers, so legalize serial killing too. Makes so much sense, just like the gay marriage.

I want to marry lots of women and men at the same time. I want to have 5 husbands and 5 wives. You cant tell me no. Its my right as a human. My human rights. The human right commission should bow down to my demands and do what I say because i feel like i was born this way. I WANT MY 5 HUSBANDS and 5 WIVES!!!!!!! Gimme gimme!

Then as has been said before when some one brings this up, start movement and get the information out there take the issue to the courts and all of that if your really serious. This (poligamy) has nothing to do with SSM and is a seperate issue and should not be used as an excuse to block SSM.

If you wanna legalize gay marriage then you must legalize incestual marriage too. The human rights and LGBT community in other countries is pushing for this too. ITS TRUE GO GET EDUCATED. because its natural and they were born that way, right?

what took so long HRC?? You must have known this was in the pipeline yet you wait until 4 DAYS AFTER the Bill is tabled to make a comment?? I am with Joe Gibbons – along with our bigoted politicans, HRC needs to resign en masse as well.

They would get married because they are in love and want to enter into the legally binding contract known as ‘marriage’ just like any other couple and be afforded all the same rights and privileges that their opposite sex counterparts enjoy.